D&D 5E Will magic be problematic at latter levels?

[RangerWickett]

I'm up for revising stuff to make it work, so let's see how HP Thresholds can work.

Firstly, they suffer from the fact that in DnD you cannot tell a target's hp from their description.

I'd be fine with players knowing HP values of enemies. Also, I definitely do NOT want effects in the game that are awesome against enemies under the threshold but useless against those over. I want a gradient.

Secondly, once beyond the first few levels, spellcasters have a goodly number of top level/near top level spells.

Actually, at least in earlier NEXT playtests, a high level wizard had something like 2 or 3 spells per level, with no bonus spells from high stats. I prefer the model where you have a couple at-will cantrips so you can always be doing something magicky -- levitating things, creating minor illusions, blasting for a bit of damage -- and even at high level you only can do a few major spells per day.

Where HP threshold are useful is at (very) low levels. Low level casters don't have that many spells, so they need their spells to be fairly effective. On the other hand, you don't want the spells staying effective at higher levels, when the casters have decent size spell pools.

I actually really want low-level spells to stay useful at high level. I want sleep to have a chance to work on a dragon, once the dragon's HP is low enough. (And if it has too many HP, the dragon is woozy for a round, which slows it.) I want defensive spells like mage armor to still be impressive. I want utility spells like fog cloud to still be useful options.

Basically, I'd like a 20th level wizard to have about 20 spells per day, plus at-will cantrips. I'd like the save DC to always be about, . . . oh, say DC 20 (regardless of spell level), and for high-level foes to have save mods of +5 to +10 (whereas low-level foes have save mods of +0 to +5).

A 1st level wizard then has a chance to cast sleep on a 20th level wizard. Normally the wizard will have over the threshold of, like, 20 HP, but if he's below there's still a chance he'll fail the DC 14 Wisdom check.

 

[RangerWickett]

These spells are binary, they either work or they don't.

To reiterate and clarify, I don't like on/off. I like good/decent/nothing or great/good/decent, and I like being able to concentrate on a spell to try and make it work.

Some examples:

Charm Person
Range Close
Duration 1 day
Charisma save (DC 10 + primary ability score mod and whatever your caster level grants you, up to +5)
HP Threshold 10.
If the target is at or below the threshold, it is charmed, but receive a save to break free if you abuse its friendship. If it is over the threshold, it makes a save. On a failure it is charmed for 5 minutes. On a success it resists your spell. However, each round thereafter you can spend an action to concentrate and increase the HP threshold by 10. (If you take damage while concentrating, you have to roll to avoid the spell being disrupted.)




Blindness
Range Touch
Duration Permanent
Constitution save
HP Threshold 15.
If the target is at or below the threshold, it is permanently blinded. If it is over the threshold, it makes a save. On a failure it is blinded for 1 round. On a success it resists your spell. However, each round thereafter you can spend an action to concentrate and increase the HP threshold by 10.


Insanity
Range Close
Duration Permanent
Wisdom save
HP Threshold 40.
If the target is at or below the threshold, it is driven permanently insane with the variety of madness of your choice (insert list here). If it is over the threshold, it makes a save. On a failure it is driven insane for 5 minutes. On a success it resists your spell entirely. However, each round thereafter you can spend an action to concentrate and increase the HP threshold by 10.


Bigby's Crushing Hand
Range Close
Duration Concentration
Strength save
HP Threshold 50.
If the target is at or below the threshold, it is pinned and takes 25 damage. Each turn when you concentrate it takes another 25 damage and you can have the hand move it 30 feet. On its turn it can make a Strength save to break free.

If it is over the threshold, it makes a save. If it fails it is grabbed and takes 10 damage. Each turn you concentrate it takes another 10 damage. If it drops under the threshold it becomes pinned. On its turn it can make a Strength save to break free.

If it succeeds the initial save it takes 10 damage but is not grabbed. You can use an action to have it attack again.



The numbers might need some work, but I think this system would play well, and would work with bounded accuracy.

 

[Li Shenron]

I think HP thresholds are a bad mechanic for several reasons.

You make reasonable points, but I am not convinced that the results of this mechanic are bad.

What is your favourite alternative by the way? Are you ok with spells that affect everybody equally from level 1 to 20 (except for different % of ST success eventually)?

Just asking because often people say they hate (max) HP threshold but then suggest level/HD threshold, which is basically the same. Max HP threshold and current HP threshold on the other end are very different things.

I am still undecided on the matter. In general, I don't like the idea of characters and monsters becoming immune to some spells by default at a certain level. I would like to try a current HP threshold system and see how it goes in practice, because the "death spiral" concept can be either good or bad, depending how you watch it. Alternatively I would just settle for the safer design choice of equal effects to everybody.

 

[Li Shenron]

Other than:
- It gets rid of pointless guessing at how dead monsters are
- It gets rid of players having to carry a monster manual with them and count down the HP themselves

I don't see anything pointless or ridiculous in guessing. So many times the PCs had to guess stuff like "is this monster immune to fire?" or "is this one of those oozes that split when hit by a sword"? What the problem with that? The PCs can try and see if it works or make things worse. For it's actually part of the fun.

It is most likely a gamestyle issue. If your players are concerned only in winning an encounter using the least resources possible, and get irritated when a spell goes wasted, then guessing is bad for you. But it ain't bad for me, in fact quite the opposite, because the best encounters for my tastes are those where you actually have to guess what will work and what won't work, where you can metagame if you're an expert of the game, but you have to do it at your own risk since the DM might have changed something, and where the system can provide some help in the form of Knowledge check for example.

Also, complaining that players have to carry the MM is just nonsense. If the gaming group doesn't like the guessing game, the DM can just tell them the HP. Now if the DM doesn't want to do that, maybe the DM and the players are not on the same gamestyle. But it makes no sense for a DM to let the players use the MM at the table but refuse to tell them the HP openly, unless she changed such HP in which case we're back to the guessing game anyway.

I actually really want low-level spells to stay useful at high level.

Me too! I also think this is quite in line with bounded accuracy. If an orc must somewhat remain a threat to a 20th level PC, why shouldn't a Sleep spell? Less likely to work, maybe shorter duration or other reduced effects... but if the 20th level PC is not immune to orcs then she should also not be immune to any spell IMHO.

 

[Falling Icicle]

To reiterate and clarify, I don't like on/off.

Fair enough. If the spells still had a decent effect on creatures above the threshold, I would find the mechanic tolerable. I still wouldn't be terribly fond of it, but I could live with it.

Are you ok with spells that affect everybody equally from level 1 to 20 (except for different % of ST success eventually)?

Yes, though I think part of the problem is that they have save-or-die spells at too low level (like sleep). As powerful as it is, it deserves to be a higher level spell, IMO.

What is your favourite alternative by the way?

The mechanic they use in dominate monster, where the creature gets advantage on its save if it's more powerful than you are, is something I could be okay with. I think that's a much better way than hp thresholds. Advantage means the creature is more likely to save, but it can still fail.

Just asking because often people say they hate (max) HP threshold but then suggest level/HD threshold, which is basically the same. Max HP threshold and current HP threshold on the other end are very different things.

Level/HD don't fluctuate. HP do. That said, I didn't like the spells in third edition that couldn't work on creatures with more than X HD, either. I don't think a spell should ever become useless. Giving advantage on the save or something like that is fine, but saying the spell just flat-out can't work on a creature with more than a certain number of HD is something I despise.

 

[Li Shenron]

Yes, though I think part of the problem is that they have save-or-die spells at too low level (like sleep). As powerful as it is, it deserves to be a higher level spell, IMO.

I think if it's moved to higher level, it would become just another save-or-die like Finger of Death, Power Word Kill, Slay Living...

I would rather keep Sleep at level 1 but change its mechanic so that it actually puts target to sleep without being a save-or-die.

How about adding that attacking a target affected by Sleep causes the spell to immediately end before the attack?

I don't think Sleep was really ever meant to be a save-or-die at all, that's how people usually play it, on the ground that someone actually sleeping is obviously an easy target, and therefore stuff like coup de grace should apply. But IMHO the spell should be intended just to take someone out of a fight temporarily (and also of course it has non-combat applications), it would be already a very useful spell in many circumstances even if it didn't allow to specifically kill the target easily.

 

[Bluenose]

To reiterate and clarify, I don't like on/off. I like good/decent/nothing or great/good/decent, and I like being able to concentrate on a spell to try and make it work.

So, more power for spell-casters, then. If they get to repeatedly force someone to save against a spell or suffer some serious effect, that spell is too powerful. Particularly with Save DCs going up and saves not getting much of an advance. I'm pretty sure a 2nd level spell shouldn't have a 50% chance to blind someone, applied round after round. But that's what you're giving with your version of Blindness and a level-20 wizard.

Oh, while we're about it, do you feel the same way about weapon attacks? Should they be getting useful effects on a miss?

 

[KidSnide]

Just asking because often people say they hate (max) HP threshold but then suggest level/HD threshold, which is basically the same. Max HP threshold and current HP threshold on the other end are very different things.

I prefer level/HD threshold over max hp threshold because hp depends on creature type as well as creature power. Wizards, fae and other magic-focused creatures tend to have low hit points for their level/HD. That's a feature because getting up in their face and whacking them with a sword should be a good strategy. But at the same time, that low hp for their level shouldn't lead to a higher vulnerability to magic. Yes, you could always give those types of creatures a bonus to their hp threshold for purposes of magic, but it's easier to base resistance on a number that is better correlated to creature power.

That being said:

1) I agree with RangerWickett's point that most save-or-suck spells should have two effects: one above a threshold and one below.

2) I agree with the OP's point that saves need some kind of defensive scaling mechanism.

Overall, I think this playtest fits into the overall playtest methodology of the designers. They haven't published (or, presumably, finished designing) their solution to balancing high level play yet. So, rather than put in a kludgy scaling factor, they've made the playtest math as flat as they think they can get away with. That way, they get to see which parts of the flatness cause the biggest problems. (I.e. do folks focus more on auto-kills from 15th level wizards or red dragons that get easily taken down by hordes of 1st level archers?)

-KS

 

[Stormonu]

Not that it matters because they can, in most cases, simply flip open a monster manual and look at the monster's exact stat bloc.

There are some game tables, such as mine, that don't allow the players to access the MM at the table and/or don't use fixed/average monster hit points.

<EDIT> Also, even when giving out info about half hit points, until the PCs hit that mark they're still in the dark as to the opponent's hit total.

 

[RangerWickett]

So, more power for spell-casters, then. If they get to repeatedly force someone to save against a spell or suffer some serious effect, that spell is too powerful. Particularly with Save DCs going up and saves not getting much of an advance. I'm pretty sure a 2nd level spell shouldn't have a 50% chance to blind someone, applied round after round. But that's what you're giving with your version of Blindness and a level-20 wizard.

Oh, while we're about it, do you feel the same way about weapon attacks? Should they be getting useful effects on a miss?

This is why we have playtesting, to make sure we go from a general idea to an actual balanced effect.

But if the wizard is concentrating on that spell, he's not casting another spell. It's like that scene in Conan the Destroyer where the two wizards glare at each other, one trying to telekinetically open a mouth-shaped door, and the other to keep it closed.

If the target gets out of range or line of sight, or if he attacks the concentrating wizard, he disrupts the spell. My idea was to balance risk and reward, and if it's not balanced that doesn't mean the idea itself needs to be tossed out; the numbers and odds and consequences just need to be tweaked.

And while no, I don't think weapon attacks should have an effect on a miss, I think they should be threatening. I mean, a 20th level wizard should be terrified of a fighter who gets in his face.

If a 100 HP fighter and a 50 HP wizard face off, the wizard casts a save-or-die spell that does nothing because the fighter has more HP. Then the fighter runs up and chops the wizard to bits.